While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced on Friday all that the present administration was doing to save lives in Haiti, Gibbs reported that President Obama was meeting at the very moment with both the House and Senate Democrats to resolve how they could provide federal funds via Obamacare to terminate more American lives in the womb.What a stark and tragic contradiction in agendas, aids, ethics and value of human life. Is it not incongruous to anyone else that our president, who proposes to be an advocate for all minorities, isn’t one for the most disadvantaged to survival? What type of health care is there for the least among (and within) us?
Abortion has been called the most hotly contested and challenging aspect of Obamacare, and, if there is no compromise soon between the House and Senate, the battle could possibly lead to the death of the health-care bills.
One thing is certain, and Obama knows it: If the Democrats are to pass their version of health care, with any overt or covert pro-abortion verbiage in it, they need their super-majority of 60 votes intact to block any possible filibuster. That is why it is certainly no coincidence that Press Secretary Gibbs also announced Friday that the president had decided to go to Massachusetts to campaign for 60th-vote Senate candidate Martha Coakley “because she asked.”
As we sit on the eve of another Sanctity of Life Sunday (Jan. 24), I’m also struck by the sheer contrasts of President Obama’s and our founders’ views of human life in the womb.
The truth is, when our country elected Obama as president, we placed a man in the highest office in the land that has the most liberal views and voting record on abortion of any president in American history. As a state senator in Illinois, he led opposition three years in a row (2001-2003) to a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of babies who survived an abortion attempt and were born alive. He also opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion and strongly disapproved of the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. He does not support the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid. He also voted to block a bill that would have required a doctor to notify at least one parent before performing an abortion on a minor girl from another state. Strangely, Obama even once said he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” due to an unwanted pregnancy.
In just his first year in office, President Obama has led and enacted more pro-choice or abortion legislation than all former presidents combined. Restrictions for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have been lifted. Obama overturned the “Mexico City Policy,” now allowing federal taxpayer funds to support international family planning groups that provide abortions. Obama gave $50 million to UNFPA, the U.N. population agency that has been criticized for promoting abortion and having close associations with Chinese population-control officials. And Obama recently signed into law another omnibus bill and its provision that overturns the 1988 Dornan Amendment, which prevented taxpayer dollars to fund abortions in Washington, D.C. Tragically, the bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family-planning funding (an increase of $103 million over 2009) and contains funding for Planned Parenthood and for the United Nations Population Fund, both of which have pro-abortion agendas.
Continue reading Save lives in Haiti, end lives in America?